Download Presentation

“ Think Twice ”: The Origin & Implications of Vermont’s Act 82

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

Public Perceptions of Education Issues

BUT, Voters do NOT View Local Schools as Highly as Vermont Schools in General

Only 46% See Vermont Education as Having Improved in Last Two Years; 29% Now See School Quality as on Decline

Public Perceptions of Education Issues

On The Other Hand..

Most Voters Not Willing to Trade Local Control for Property Tax Relief

Even More Unwilling to Trade Cuts in Enrichment Courses for Property Tax Relief

Almost As Many Unwilling to Trade Sports for Property Tax Relief

Public Perceptions of Education Issues

Most Believe Their Local Districts Can Make Only Modest Spending Cuts Without Hurting Quality

Most Want Budget Decisions Made Locally

Vermonters Still Rank Schools More Favorably Than Voters in Almost All Other States

Meanwhile…Vermont Schools Get High Marks

And School Spending Patterns Change

This chart shows that the rate of growth in education spending has been slowing significantly in recent years, as school boards and administrators strive to contain costs. Vermont’s annual education spending percent increase for FY08 is estimated to be 4.37%. Meanwhile, the most recent data available (2005-06) shows that personal income per capita grew 4.7% in Vermont.

Education Fact Sheet

This chart, prepared by the Joint Fiscal Office, shows the average annual percentage change in per pupil spending from 1998-2006, grouped by high and low spending districts in 1998. Since 1998, equity as measured by spending per equalized pupil has improved in Vermont’s public school system. Vermont’s lowest spending districts have increased their investments in education the most, while the State’s highest spending districts are actually spending fewer inflation-adjusted dollars per pupil than in 1998.

Major Elements of Act 82

Two Vote Budget Approval Process

Act 82 limits the amount an above-average spending district may increase its per equalized pupil spending;

If amount of the budget proposal is greater than maximum allowed, voters must “think twice” via separate ballot warning.

The “Maximum Inflation Amount”

Two components to determine how much above-

average spenders may increase education spending

without a separate vote:

Prior year’s statewide average education spending per equalized pupil

An inflationary index

The Ballot

The school budget ballot must warn the two

questions, if necessary, as follows:

“Shall the voters of the School District approve a total budget in the amount of [$ ], which includes the Maximum Inflation Amount of education spending?”

“If Question #1 is approved, shall the voters of the School District also approve additional education spending of [$ ]?”

Declining Enrollment

Districts with declining enrollment will be allowed to use the prior year’s pupil count for the purposes of calculating their maximum inflation amount.

This will aid districts with one year of decline, but districts with persistent declining enrollment can expect tighter budgetary restrictions from the MIA.

S.U. Bargaining

Act 82 requires all school boards within a supervisory union to bargain jointly with all employee bargaining units.

Any negotiated agreement would be subject to separate ratification votes.

Failure to ratify the common contract will result in further, individual negotiations between the district and the bargaining unit.

Two Exceptions

Districts May Bargain Separately When:

The supervisory union has more than one high school.

The S.U. includes both districts that tuition high school students and districts that encompass grades K-12.

Grade Level Weighting

The secondary pupil weighting (grades 7-12) will be lowered from 1.25 to 1.13 effective for the 2007-08 school year.

Assuming budgets and enrollments remain constant, this change will increase the per pupil cost of educating a secondary student, and decrease the per pupil cost of educating an elementary student.

(Continued)

Union high school districts should expect increased per pupil costs as a result.

Most taxpayers’ bills will not see a significant difference due to this change, because the bill will reflect higher secondary costs and lower elementary costs.

See Handout for More Information

High Spending SpEd Districts

The Commissioner is to identify districts spending 20% greater than average on special education and develop “remediation plans” with those districts.

If the district does not make “satisfactory progress” within a period of years, it would be subject to a 10% special education reimbursement withholding.

A Notice to Taxpayers

Every school tax bill mailed will include a two-page flyer with charts intended to show the relationship between school spending and education property tax rates.

The sub-title is: “The more you spend, the more you pay.”

State-placed Students

Beginning in FY09, districts will be eligible for 100% reimbursement of costs for state placed students, including mainstream costs, if the district can document all costs.

And Finally, There’s All Those Studies

Biannual Recommendations on Grade Level Weights

Analysis and Recommendations Regarding High Spending Special Education Districts

A Study of Cost Drivers in Education

A Study of Operational Effectiveness and Efficiency of the DOE

Education Governance Report and Recommendations

And Finally, There’s All Those Studies

Recommendations for the Interagency Provision of Special Education Services

Study of Educational Services Funded by Medicaid

Mandates Study

Examination and Recommendations Regarding the Financial Management of Districts